[32570] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traceroute versus other performance measurement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ping Pan)
Wed Nov 29 11:11:52 2000
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:09:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Ping Pan <pingpan@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Paul Bradford <paul@adelphia.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <00112910161602.26452@merlin.noc.adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.30.0011291105410.7097-100000@bourbon.cs.columbia.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Have you tried pathchar? It's pretty much the same as traceroute, but it
is to estimate e2e bandwidth. When it first came out, I tried it. It
didn't give good results. I heard it had been enhanced since. Go to
ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/pathchar/
- Ping
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Paul Bradford wrote:
>
> I have been reading NANOG posts for probably 2 years now.. this is my 1st post.
>
> I need help with a reality/sanity check. Traceroute is a good tool for
> checking for routing type problems (loops). Does anyone feel it's a good tool
> to use for testing "bandwidth".... My obvious answer is it isn't a good tool
> for that.... One problem I see is that the way traceroute works, if a
> transport mixes media between say Ethernet to LANE and back to Ethernet you
> give room for Destination unreachable responses from a trace route because you
> have to to packet switching medias with a fast cell switched media in
> between.... packets less than 64k (like traceroute info) are easily lost in the
> conversion from ethernet to LANE.
>
> Does this sound right?
> Thanks,
> Paul A. Bradford
>
>
